Two days ago, we got another flier from the Republican Party of Indiana. It was a campaign ad for Mike Sodrel, the Republican incumbent for the Congressional seat in this district. Don't worry, loyal readers. This won't be a rant - mostly because I am too tired and a little because I am starting to think that it is all so hopeless. Along that line, I have been checking out real estate in Vermont, Maine and Canada...but I digress.
Remeber that Sodrel's opponent is Baron Hill. The 8 1/2 " X 11" flier says "Baron Hill has a problem with traditional marriage." Next to this ludicrous statement is a photo of a picture frame showing a bride and groom on their wedding day, only the glass has been shattered. To support the headline statement, we are told that Hill voted against a constitutional ammendment banning same sex marriages. (There was no discussion of Hill voting against a constitutional ammendment abolishing traditional marriage, which might have convinced me that he did indeed have a problem with traditional marriage.)
Then, the subject matter changes to abortion and a few lines paint Hill to be pro-choice - and of course, that is not a good thing as far as these Republicans are concerned. I don't see what this has to do with marriage, but they probably figured that nobody would notice the inconsistency.
Down the page, in larger letters it says, " With Baron Hill, values are negotiable."
On the other side of this flier is a photo close up of a bride and groom's hands clasped. Above this picture is a photo inset of Sodrel with the words "Mike Sodrel Defends Marriage". The text below the picture of the couple's hands reads: "One woman. One man. That's Marriage."
Then this: "That's Mike Sodrel. Straight Talk. Conservative. One of Us." ("One of Us" is in Italics...but I can't do that on my blog.)
Now, I don't care what your position on gay marriage is- though I don't particularly get why anyone is bothered by it. What gets me is the crazy notion that if one is not for denying homosexual people the right to marry, that somehow makes one "against traditional marriage". What does one thing have to do with the other? Nothing. That's what. If two men or women want to get married to each other - if ten million such marriages happened - how would this weaken my marriage? The answer is, not at all. If such unions are against your religious beliefs, well, and I won't mince words here...tough shit. Last time I looked, this wasn't a religious nation. Well, not constitutionally, anyway.
So, here's the thing. If someone -and I mean Mike Sodrel or others like him, those self-proclaimed traditional marriage defenders & supporters- If someone really wants to defend traditional marriage, then that someone should go after the number one destroyer of that sacred institution. Divorce. After all, about half of all marriages are put assunder by divorce. I have never once heard of a traditional marriage breaking up because of someone else's homosexual union. So, I must conclude that divorce is indeed a far greater threat to traditional marriage than gay marriage is.
So, I guess that now that I have brought this to Sodrel's attention - because I am certain that he reads this blog - he will go after that evil institution and make it a campaign issue. Imagine this flier: "Baron Hill is against traditional marriage! He never once tried to make divorce illegal."
But, now that I think about it, that'll never happen. Why? Because at least half of Sodrel's consituents who have been married are now divorced or will be in a matter of time and this just won't sit well with them. Homophobic fear mongering is definitely a better way to get votes. Now, I know those readers who believe that Sodrel is simply showing his unwavering values by honestly defending traditional marriage will think their BloomingtonGirl is being cynical.
You can believe what you like. After all, it's a free country. Unless you are a homosexual who wants to marry the person you love. Then, not so much.